I'm so excited to tell you that we have all the publicly available trial exhibits from the Oracle v. Google trial. We should thank this judge, the Hon. William Alsup, because he is the one insisting on keeping the trial as public as possible. I know you join me in saying thank you for this treasure.

Now, logistics: there are a lot of them, and I could use your help.

They are grouped by trial date, so eventually, I want to post them to the article covering that day of the trial. [ Update: Actually, looking closer, they are not matching trial dates. Some are entered on a Saturday, for example. So, we'll list them here, and you'll have to check as you read in reports about an exhibit and try to match up. Once we have the court transcripts word for word matching will make that easier.] First, though, I'd like help making a list for each day of what the exhibits are. Currently they are listed by number only. So we need to do some matching.

I have them listed by date, one by one, so you can download them one at a time. If you can help, leave a comment stating which date you will do, or download a date-then-individual-numbered PDF and just tell in the comment what it is, so we don't duplicate effort. There are a couple of exhibits that we already have, because they are briefs. We don't need to do those again, just supply a link. The following lists are all done by hand, so if you spot an error or an omission, please let me know.

I am puzzled that no one in the regular media has done this. The exhibits are made available by the court. And they are tweeting about nothing happening and who wore what and ignoring these exhibits. Well, that's what Groklaw is for.

So here we are. I know some of you technical experts may notice something that the lawyers missed, so have at them, by all means. If you spot something that proves points that came up in the trial, say so, and then if you or someone can do those as text, even better. These exhibits are in the record, so they are all usable in any appeal, so this is not wasted effort by any means.

So here's a technology that takes java class files and converts them to another format (javascript) and I don't see Sun screaming bloody murder over this. Including, even, "JRE Emulation Library (java.lang and java.util". Whatever happened to their "we own copyright on the method signatures" bullshit argument?

Brian

0245.pdf [Discussion about a CNET article by Stephen Shankland re how much of Android was open sourced, and what to do about perceived inaccuracies. http:!/news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-9949793-39. html?tag=nefd.top]

From Eric Schmidt. Sent: 5/30/2008 11:00 PM
To: Bob Lee
Subject: RE: It was great chatting with you yesterday.

Thanks Bob.. you were great to walk around with. I'm not surprised about Sun's position; this has been a long standing pattern. I can send a note to their CEO if that would help. My own view is that creating a truly free competitor is the best way to fix this; they won't really be responsible until there is a good alternative.

This is the YouTube-powered site I told you about: http://www.totlol.com/

On Wednesday, I spoke about Guice, an open source project I created and released one year ago (http://code.google.com/p/google-guice/). Guice won Dr. Dobb's Jolt award a couple months back.

I hope you don't mind if I pick your brain for a moment. I'm certain you're already aware of this, but Sun has been abusing their special position within the JCP and playing licensing games with Java SE in order to keep it off phones and protect their Java ME licensing revenues. Sun puts field-of-use restrictions in the Java SE TCK licenses which prohibit Java SE implementations from running on anything but a desktop or server. These restrictions prevent Apache Harmony from independently implementing Java SE (Harmony can't put those restrictions on their own users and still Apache license the code) not to mention Android (though that's water under the bridge at this point). The JCP EC won't vote "yes" to start work on Java 7 until Sun straightens their act up, but Sun isn't budging and even threatens to blow up the JCP if things don't resolve themselves in the next couple months. We obviously depend heavily on Java internally and would like to see it move forward. Do you have any advice? What would you like to see happen here?

[P961] 2012-04-22 Oracle Update on 702 Copyright Questions.pdf["Oracle America, Inc. submits this update on the PTO’s progress in
reexamining the
asserted claims of the ’702 patent. On April 19, 2012, the PTO mailed a Notice
of Intent to Issue
Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate confirming the patentability of all the
asserted claims of the
’702 patent. Attached hereto is a copy of the PTO’s notice."]

0140.pdf [Email from Bill Coughran to Tim Lindholm, cc to Andy Rubin, dated Feb. 10, 2006, Re: Travel for Android requested, oking his email request, same date, to do a "two-day deep dive into the architecture with TI's engineers" which is referring to a TI project, "a Java acceleration architecture (silicon and surrounding software) done by TI." TI was asking to partner with Google and Sun for Android handsets.]

I don't see any way we can work together and not have it revert to arguments of control. I'm done with Sun (tail between my legs, you were right). They won't be happy when we release our stuff, but we now have a huge alignment with industry, and they are just beginning. While I'm not underestimating
their abilities, when folks like DaCoMa tell us they want to dump Sun for us, I'm assuming we have something valuable and good. (DaCoMa is flying in next week).

On a separate note, I need to speak with you re: Korea. LG and Samsung are two of my most difficult partners, extremely aggressive when it comes to competition. They know about each other and have crossed the line several times re: our IP (the Dream design I showed you). We are currently in a
small dispute with each, which I'm sure will be resolved diplomatically, but I need to brief you in more detail so you don't walk into a storm in korea.

> > btw, we would, of course, love to work together... our intent isn't to
>deliver a phone, it's to help others do so. > >Jonathan >

0214.pdf [One line email from Eric Schmidt to Andy Rubin, Subject: sun deal, May 14, 2006: "How are we doing on the Sun deal? Its it time to develop a non-Java solution to avoid dealing with them? Thanks ! Eric"]

0215.pdf [One-line email from Chris Desalvo to Andy Rubin, Subject Java class libraries, June 1, 2006: "With talks with Sun broken off where does that leave us regarding Java class libraries? Ours are half-ass at best. We need another half of an ass.
-chris"]

Shannon mentioned you were a little surprised that I made a presentation on Android last week and that you had some concerns about what was reported. Sorry you weren't aware that I was asked to talk; I did go through a proper prep with Rich as well as the PR people; and I did by best to learn off the official Q&A. I was very conscious of the sensitivity around Java and was careful to sidestep any pointed questions in that direction (I definitely never said JVM or "the" Java language, for instance). It's very clear from reading some of postings that reporters both professional and amateur are not so diligent about such subtleties and tend to make their own inferences. I took the conclusion by TechCrunch (who were live-blogging) as an endorsement that I mightn't have messed up: "But if you were expecting much new information on all this you would probably have been disappointed.".

Anyways, I can understand you unease about this since (a) you don't know me, and (b) I don't work on Android directly. I'm a big fan of the work you and your team are doing and hope that our "Mobile Gears" project in conjunction with David Carson and Rich Miner will prove valuable. With respect to the conference, my main motivation was to help the London office and EMEA in general (i.e. better visibility that we're involved in mobile). The last thing I want to do is cause any tension internally so I'm absolutely happy to pull back on talking about Android. Besides, I'll probably need your advice at some point on an autonomous model helicopter project so I'll need to be on talking terms with you :-)

You seem very down, and I understand. No stingray/crespo is a downer, personally, and strategically, inside and outside.

However, it's not all doom. Some stuff works well.

FYI, YouTube is exceeding it's target because they are sandbagged to hell... YT would have hit targets with purely organic growth, and absolutely no product upside. Many other products do that. Android promised targets based on not yet existing products, which is inherently riskier.

Louis

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Andy Rubin wrote:

Ultimately the OC sees this as a fight against Apple. As you know, iPhone will come to Verizon in January.

Breaking our promise to Verizon will change their behavior.

I don't worry about today, I worry about our future. I'm a chess player and to win you need to look n moves ahead.

On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Louis Perrochon wrote:

You should point out to the OC and L&S that Android devices are organically very successful, and Android does support and needs support, and we deserve credit for this. A delay in GED won't slow that down.

FWIW, I'm not sure I get all the value provided by the OSS wrinkle yet, although I do agree that a low cost, Google-friendly alternative to the incumbents makes sense given some possible Google strategies. I'm going to try to stay publicly neutral tomorrow and try to understand what Google hopes to achieve. If that doesn't make it clearer I'll come bug you.

...and as far as GPL-ing the VM, everything that is linked with the VM would get infected.

The problem with GPL in embedded systems is that it's viral, and there is no way (for example) OEMs or Carriers to differentiate by adding proprietary works. We are building a platform where the entire purpose is to let people differentiate on top of it.

Finally, Sun has a different license for its library for SE and ME. The SE library is LGPL, ME library is GPL. That means anything that links with the ME library gets infected. And the SE library is not optimized for embedded systems.

Sun chose GPL for this exact reason so that companies would need to come back to them and take a direct license and pay royalties.

Tricky, no? Why would we want to do anything to support this behavior? We want to distance ourselves as much as possible from Sun.

-andy

PS --we negotiated 9 months with Sun and decided to walk away after they threatened to sue us over patent violations

On Aug 11, 2007, at 3:47PM, Dan Bornstein wrote:

>On 8/11/07, Bob Lee wrote:
>>I thought you guys might be interested in the reactions to Sun's
>>TCK licensing announcement
>>on the Java Champions mailing list. Sun's not fooling anyone. (The
>> list isn't public, so please
>>don't forward further.)
>
> I'm sure you agree that this is a totally unsurprising move by Sun.
>
>> Would it make sense for us to use Sun's Java library
>> implementation and license Dalvik under
>> the GPL? I think that would count as "substantial derivation" in
>> which case we'd get a TCK
>> license, right? :)
>
> I see the smiley, but in a word, no.
>
> I don't think there is a substantial benefit to getting access to the
> TCK, and any attempt to work loopholes would just open us up to more >trouble down the road. We are committed to implementing our own
> libraries at this point along with associated tests, and we are basing
> it off of the Apache Harmony work, which is already substantially >complete and has a fair number of tests. > > We will no doubt have bugs that would have been caught by Sun's TCK, >but I am confident that we will be compatible *enough* by first-ship, >such that developers won't find themselves running into gotchas due to > compliance bugs. > >-dan

0273.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin to Dan Bornstein, dated Nov. 14, 2007, Re: ASF
joining OHA? Talks about Apache joining OHA and an offical Harmony ME
"fork". Rubin comment regarding Apache having access to Java TCK:
Still, some kind of firewall will need to be in place. I dont want
Sun claiming know-how from TCK made it into Android VM or libs.]

0298.pdf [Emails between Brian Swetland, Mathias Aogpian, cc'd to fadden@google.com, arubin@gooble.com, joeo@google.com, Jan. 3, 2006, Re: new java world. [Lists reasons to "shift to a primarily Java API, among them: "the negotiations with Sun are going far better than expected" and "The nature of the cellular market is that we are *required* to have java due to carrier requirements, etc."]

0382.pdf [Email from Andy Rubin to Eric Chu, cc'd to others on PR team, Nov. 16, 2007, re Google folks being quoted. "PR team --can you make sure that only authorized speakers speak to the press? This is really important and a legal issue.]

0387.pdf [Email from Rich Miner to David Thevenon, dated Sep. 11, 2006, pres.
The content is in an attachement "The Google Phone", a 79 page
presentation for T-Mobile (date on presentation is Nov 2006). The
presentation contains among many other things mock-ups of a Google
phone, and it mentiones a Google subsidized data plan (page 26,
$9.99/month).]

Ah ... what a scam .. you get generate your own code 100% and Sun still gets to tell you what to do with it.. ahhh ...

let me know if you need any local followup with Skermier.

Any update on Qualcom, did our legal conversation with them go ok last week?

.. Rich

On 8/1/06, Andy Rubin wrote:

IBM is a Java licensee, so they can't open source their implementation.

On Aug 1, 2006, at 9:08AM, Rich Miner wrote:
>Andy, > > I dont think we have time to start going down this path ... but I > have had two people mention to me that IBM might be open to the >idea of working with us to open source their JVM. Most people seem >to think they have a better JVM than Sun. They are much more > aggressive at leveraging "true" open source as a business model. > >Anyway, should we need a plan "C"... I should have thought of it >sooner. > > ..Rich

I was talking to Vic today about what will happen to Sun long-term. It seems to me that Sun's only option for survival is a set of spin-offs. What do you think about us buying the full rights to Java from Sun? Maybe it would cost $100 million? We could turn it into an open foundation (along with OpenJDK) and solve all of these lawsuits we're facing. It would also help improve our Java developer tools and bolster our enterprise image (especially with App Engine). I'd love to know what you think.

-Brett

Software Engineer Google App Engine

0431.pdf [Talking points for board of directors on Android. Attachment: "The 5 Business Units each a $10B opportunity. Android and Chrome platforms critical assets for their success."]

Incoming agreement for your signature.
This is our final java solution -- consultants to take our java libraries as a starting place, and bring our java classes up to J2SE spec, in a clean-room environment.

They have signed up to a pretty aggressive schedule for quite a bit of work. This deal replaces the $18M approved acquisition that we decided to pass on.

Barring any unforeseen surprises, I think this is our last big deal ($4M). A couple of smaller 500k deals in the pipeline.

We are under budget.

-andy

0538.pdf [Sun's CTO Vineet Gupta to Andy Rubin emails, Oct. 2007, plugging Sun Java. Example: "Jonathan has been connecting with Eric S. on several fronts and he was asking me if we had anything being discussed around JavaME for your platform."]

0618.pdf [Emails between Andy Rubin and Sun's Vineet Gupta, cc Matt Marquis at Sun, March 26, 2006, Subject: CONFIDENTIAL: Sun Google Collaboration. Attached is the draft agreement, titled COLLABORATION DEVELOPMENT AND LICENSE AGREEMENT. Note that both parties were to contribute pre-existing software, cross-licensed, not just Sun to Google, as well as joint work, to be jointly owned, going forward. There was to be an open source licensed version, under the Apache License, for which Google would pay Sun to release its code that way, and Sun would have a proprietary version.]

0619.pdf [Draft agreement between Sun and Google, as revised by Google, March 29, 2006, emailed bet. Andy Rubin and Vineet Gupta at Sun.]

Well, the answer might very well be a quick no. But if
it's discrete I think it should at least be safe to ask.

-- Tim

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Andy Rubin
wrote:

Happy to try if you feel strongly about this.

On Nov 24, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Tim Lindholm wrote:

I knew about the toolbar situation and think Sun already
had a shamefully lucrative deal with us compared to other
money they were making off Java. But money is going to
talk very loudly at Sun right about now. If it came down
to
trying to outspend MSFT that probably is the wrong game
for us. The Android licensing/JCP stuff is pretty clearly
a
non-starter, at least unless someone had some thinking way
more creative than we have done internally. Sun's
standard approach to resolving the situation that would
poison the ecosystem we've tried to create with little to
compensate (at least scoped to Android).

Still, I guess I can't blame them for trying both of those
things, and think they mostly reflect core business
concerns
rather than anything nefarious.

But with no toolbar deal they have even fewer reasons to
think of us as friends, and might have MSFT out there
egging them on to hurt us. I worry that it's madness over
there now, and with Rich Green gone insaner heads might
prevail. So I think more than ever we'd rather try to find
cheap, philosophically consistent ways to work with them
rather than reduce the coupling and risk being blindsided.
This JavaOne thing isn't the only or best one, but it's
easy
to try.

-- Tim

On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Andy Rubin
wrote:

Sun recently came to us to renew the toolbar deal (or
which we distribute 24% of our clients) and requested two
things: double the guaranty (from $50M to $100M) and for
us to certify Android through the Java process and
become licensees of Java. We made the decision to say no,
greatly affecting our search business, and Sun gave the
distribution deal to MSFT.

What would you do?

On Nov 24, 2008, at 7:01 PM, Tim Lindholm wrote:

Hi Andy,

[Dan B might have pinged you on this already:]

The question has come up whether to try to submit Android
talks to JavaOne. There are mixed opinions of whether
this is worth peoples' time to do so for the sake of the
exposure and developer relations alone.

But some of us have also considered possible longer-term
calming effects should we be allowed to participate. It
seems likely that Sun, in turmoil anyhow due to its
internal problems, will feel especially pressed to have
cool or
positive things to talk about at JavaOne. If on the
balance Android would serve that need Sun might conclude
it's
worth having it in the tent rather than kept uneasily
outside.

The timing is also interesting given that Sun has
disclosed (confidentially for now) an architectural
relaxation that
would make the Java platform more subsettable. That could
provide a road to reconciliation between Android and
the standard platforms without Android having to get
sucked into the JCP. Google (not Android) has already made
positive noises privately, and will probably come out in
favor of this proposal publicly assuming Sun actually
releases
it.

Of course they might just say blanket no about JavaOne.
Rather than have a bunch of people waste time writing
talks that might be rejected, we could send a feeler to a
known Marketing VP in the JavaOne loop at Sun asking
whether Android submissions would be considered.

1050.pdf [Email thread internal Google from June 20, 2007, between Chris DiBona, Andy Rubin, and forwarded message from Greg Stein to Bill Coughran regarding what to do about the Apache-Sun dispute. Also includes an email from Peter Lord at Oracle to Wayne Carr at Intel, Mark Thomas as IBM, swolfe at IBM, Greg Stein at Google, Chris DiBona at Google, cc'd to Donald Deutsch at Oracle, Steven G. Harris at Oracle, Michael Gelbum at Oracle, Scott K. Jameson at HP, gtlane at IBM, Karla Norsworthy at IBM, zaheda at Google, Steven Chin at Intel. The email is about a private letter, draft attached, to Jonathan Schwartz suggesting he provide Apache with an unencumbered license to Java Compatibility Kit for use by the Apache Harmony project. The email from Oracle is asking for additional signatures from the other companies.]

2372.pdf [Email thread dated May 2006 between Vineet Gupta at Sun, Andy Rubin at Google, Jonathan Schwartz at Sun right after he was made CEO, cc'd to Scott McNealy at SUn and Eric Schmidt at Google, trying to get negotiations going again. "We lost a little momentum, but from the recent email exchange between you and ERic, it's obvious to me that both parties want to make this work. One final push may be all it takes." Schmidt says: "Google has made considerable investment in this area... Although well underway, we're still open to having Sun contribute components of the stack."]

3441.pdf [Jonathan Schwartz email to Eric Schmidt, Nov. 2007, re Android. "Let us know how we can help support your announcements next week."]

A few of your alliance partners have reached out to us to build a "separate but equal" effort -- we would love having seen this movie a few times before to have one big tent rather than hundred little ones.. and we can obviously bring global Java community to the party

3443.pdf [Emails between Eric Schmidt and Andy Rubin re Sun Deal, April 29, 2006. Rubin: "Overall here's where we stand:
1) I am convinced they will open source java with no tricks 2) Final price $28M..." Asks for input.]

3466.pdf [Email from Eric Schmidt to Jonathan Schwartz, cc to Andy Rubin, March 31, 2008, Subject: update on android licensing. Schmidt explains to Schwartz that the Apache license means Sun can do whatever proprietary things it wants on top, with Java or anything, with no "give back".]

2012-04-25:

0270.pdf [Email from Dan Bornstein to Ben Titzer, cc to android-dalvik, Subject: Re: [dalvik] Dalvik IP issues. Bornstein says it's ok to use what is in your head, but not ok to copy other people's code.]

0359.pdf [Email from Dan Bornstein to Jesse Wilson at Google, dated Aug. 11, 2009. However, it's in the format of questions interspersed with the answers. It's regarding whether one of them should "disclose my work for danger". "no access to sun source code, but we did create a java impl., and we did license the j2me tck"]

2012-04-26:

0016.pdf [Email thread between Jonathan Schwartz of Sun and Vineet Gupta of Sun, dated Feb. 9, 2006, re "Potential Sun Google partnership in the
Mobile Java and OS Space". Includes a forwarded Scott McNealy email to Eric: "This is a
great
opportunity for both companies to jointly provide an Open Source
Java
Linux Mobile Handset Platform implementation and to build on
the
momentum of over 1 Billion Java Micro Edition based handsets
deployed
in the market currently. Alan and team on my side have this as a top priority. Jonathan
has
been reaching out to Sergey on this as well. The financials of
this deal will be crucial for Sun to ensure success. I look forward to
us announcing our alliance on this soon and getting the
industry,
developers, OEMs, content and service providers behind us. We
should also have the teams start thinking about to play this big at JavaOne this year." Another McNealy email to Eric Schmidt, Feb. 9 also has statement re worries about "how we're going to replace the revenue this is likely going to submarine. I'm very supportive of driving a completely open stack, and even taking risk with Java to get there, but I just need to understand the economics." Another email dated Feb. 8 from Schmidt to McNealy proposes the two companies form "an alliance around our Open Handset Platform". Schmidt says it is "an opportunity for our two companies to work together to define the de-facto standard software stack for mobile phones."] [PJ: Full text:]

Jonathan,
Did not send my response as requested because Andy forwarded me
Scott's
response - so I did not respond to the team with mine. I think we
should also push Google to be a Platinum sponsor for JavaOne...

I am hoping you continue to provide Exec sponsoship thru Sergey/Larry
regarding this. We will probably need that when we push on the
financials...

Appreciate you support as always.

-Vineet

>Eric,
>
>My team has been keeping me in the loop on this. This is a
great
>opportunity for both companies to jointly provide an Open Source
Java
>Linux Mobile Handset Platform implementation and to build on
the
>momentum of over 1 Billion Java Micro Edition based handsets
deployed
>in the market currently.
>
>Alan and team on my side have this as a top priority. Jonathan
has
>been reaching out to Sergey on this as well. The financials of
this
>deal will be crucial for Sun to ensure success. I look forward to
use
>announcing our alliance on this soon and getting the
industry,
>developers, OEMs, content and service providers behind us. We
should
>also have the teams start thinking about to play this big at
>JavaOne this year.
>
>Looking forward to seeing you soon.
>Scott.
>
>
>

>*Subject: Re: Potential Sun Google partnership in the Mobile
Java
>and OS Space
>Replay-To: *Scott.McNealy@Sun.com
>
>Thanks for the note. Jonathan and the team are on top of this
-
>I'm worried about how we're going to replace the revenue this
is
>likely going to submaring. I'm very supportive of driving a
>completely open phone stack, and even taking risk with Java to
get
>there, but I just need to understand the economics.
>
>But we're obviously supportive in helping to fuel the market.
>
>Scott.
>
>PS Has you team had a chance to try out the new T2000 with
>32 hw threads yet?
>
>
>
>Eric Schmidt wrote:
>
>Scott.. I'm in a product review and we are looking at a very
>interesting
>partnership proposal with Sun. Basically, Andy Rubin runs our
>mobile
>op/search engineering group; he is talking with Alan Brenner
>VP Consumer &
>Mobile Systems Group of Sun.
>
>Google has engaged with Sun's Java team in an effort to form
>an alliance
>around our Open Handset Platform. It is an opportunity for
our
>two
>companies to work together to define the de-factor standard
>software stack
>for mobile phones. Google has adopted a completely open
source
>model as a
>way to solve osme intricate distribution dependencies. It
>makes sense to me
>that Sun and Google should do this together; can you check
and
>hopefully

CONFIDENTIAL
Trial Exhibit 16, Page 2 of 3
OAGOOGLE0000357506

>dedicate the resources necessary to move this ahead at
an
>accelerated pace.
>I wanted to make sure you know I will do the same on my side.
>
>Anyway this is very exciting and hopefully a good idea for
>both of us !
>Thanks and take care.. Eric
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>I made it. It is fine. Just have no one else to
complain to.
>Try to do it just to you.
>
>I do have to get a new secy. I hate to say it but I really
miss
>Karen's efficiency and smarts.
>
>I did good this trip. Calls are going well and we are getting
some
>good momentum in Fed.
>The regular visits are starting to create a buzz. Going back
out
>to DC in first week of May.
>
>Lets discuss the R&D cuts. We have so much opp.
>
>The google thing is really a pain. They are immune to
copyright
>laws, good citizenship, they dont share.
>They dont even call back.
>
>See you tomorrow at Verizon
>
>Scott
>
>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
>
>>Sorry to hear about the time wasted - let's
definitely talk about
>>transport options. Your value/hour makes pretty much
anything
>>look cheap...
>

>Thanks, Vineet!
>
>
>Vineet Gupta - OEM Software Sales CTO/Worldwide SE Director
wrote:
>
>>Leo,
>>Please see email below. Am working with JS to get message to
Eric S.
>>to enable us to get in at higher level.
>>
>>-Vineet
>>
>>>---- Original Message ---
>>>Subject: Re: thanks for stopping by
>>>Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 12:39:06 -0700
>>>From: Vineet Gupta - OEM Software Sales CTO/Worldwide SE
Director
>>>
>>>To: Jonathan Schwartz
>>>CC: Rich Green
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks Jonathan - yes from a mobile
standpoint:
>>>o) would love to partner on Google Apps available at a
Resident App
>>>levle in JavaFX Mobile
>>>o) would like to see if they are interested in AdSence
(TB/Google Ad
>>>engine) integrated in our JavaFX Modile
>>>
>>>
>>>Seperately they continue to work on G-Phone - and their
engg has not
>>>been open to re-engage - so don't know if they continue
on the path of
>>>a javascript/java bytecode minging CDC JVM or have moved
to Ajax or
>>>something else. If they end up creating a munge - it
will end up in a
>>>discussion around compatibility and licensing around
Java.
>>>
;

CONFIDENTIAL
Trial Exhibit 565, Page 1 of 4
OAGOOGLE0004781928

>>>I
will push from Priti's side as well.
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>-Vineet
>>>
>>>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
>>>>What I said to Amy(?) was - we're seeing a very
significant uptick in
>>>>Java distribution and updates, along with a
sizeable acceleration of
>>>>OpenOffice usage - and in addition, we're
building a phone.
>>>>
>>>>So we kinda/sorta have a relationship around the
first two, none
>>>>around the last and it's high time we figured
out how to build
>>>>something bigger than we're doing
today.
>>>>
>>>>I'll send Eric a note with the same ping -
presuming we want more
>>>>opportunity to work together...
>>>>
>>>>js
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Leo Cizek@sun.com wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Vineet,
>>>
>>>Re your email below, I thought I would ask for your
updated
>>>thoughts, now that the StarOffice deal is done (of
course,
>>>the Java SE Embedded deal is not).
>>>
>>>leo
>>>
>>>
>>>On 08/02/07, Vineet Gupta, OEM Software Sale
CTO/Worldwide SE
>>>Director wrote:
>>>
>>>>So two sides to this coin (part of this is for
your other email Leo).
>>>>
>>>>1) Google has made it known that they will do a
Google phone
>>>>(similar to iPhone). We think that it is similar
to what we were
>>>>trying to work with them on Project Android - as
a collaboration
>>>>between the two companies. It does compete with
Sun's Java DX
>>>>Mobile strategy at several levels.
>>>>
>>>>2) If Google is still using Java in it - a) then
they have to come
>>>>for a license with us - and will need to be
compatible (and Andy
>>>>cannot say he is not aware of the licensing
requirements - as he
>>>>had to go thru this at Danger - and we discussed
this during
>>>>Project Android Phase, and then during the
Sun/Google collaboration
>>>>attempt as well). b) they will decide to go the
non-compliant,

CONFIDENTIAL
Trial Exhibit 565, Page 2 of 4
OAGOOGLE0004781929

>>>>non-licensed route - then we will need to go
deal with them or
>>>>their handset vendor for IP issues. c) or they
leverage opensourced
>>>>PhoneMe - and we will have to wait and see if
they are following
>>>>all GPL rules requred.
>>>>
>>>>3) I have sent emails to Andy requesting a
discussion around what
>>>>they are planning, and if they need Java
licensing and/or if they
>>>>are interested in partnering around JavaFX
mobile - with no
>>>>response. He actaully canceled my face 2 face
and requested an
>>>>email instead - which he did not respond to. I
have decided not to
>>>>call his cell - as we need to see what they are
doing - before I
>>>>escalate.
>>>>
>>>>4) I need the SO deal done - before I raise a
stink - else we get
>>>>that deal entangled into the issues that are
bound to come up.
>>>>
>>>>5) I also need to see how the embedded JavaSE
deal is going to end
>>>>up - to decide how much to pile on.
>>>>
>>>>-Vineet
>>>>
>>>>Lino Persi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We gotta get in on this!!!!
>>>>>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070802/tc_n
m/google_wireless_dc_6
>>>>>
>>>>>LP
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>
>>>>>*
>>>>>*
>>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>************
>>>>Vineet Gupta
>>>>WorldWide Sr. Director
>>>>Chief Strategy/Technology office
>>>>OEM Software Systems Engineering
>>>>SUN Microsystems
>>>>Vineet.Gupta@Sun.com
>>>>(408)404-8950
>>>>***********
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
;

A separate implementation isn't a fork - so long as Google agrees to
certify their platform as compliant with the Java specification. If
they don't, they won't be able to call it Java - we should ask the
press to ask Google if their platform will be compliant with the Java
specification. Let's get the on defense...

"The Java community has never been stronger - Google's endorsement
of
the platform gives yet more opportunity to developers wanting to
capitalize on the billions of decives running the Java platform
around the world."

On Nov 12, 2007, at 6:09 PM, Karen Kahn wrote:
>fyi on cnet story that just posted. working with software team
on
>updated version of partyline to better scope out our
position.
>
>Jacquelyn Decoster wrote:
>>Google made their SDK announcement today. Shankland just posted
a
>>story saying that it looks like Google is going to fork
Java.
>>(Article pasted below) http://www.news.com/
>>8301-13580_3-9815495-39.html?tag=blog.3 [Ed note:
link]
>>
>>Rich Green is quoted in the CNET story based on a comment he
have
>>Dawn Kawamoto last week during the OOW pre-brief interview.
His
>>quote and the Sun positioning is accurate:
>>
>>"For its part, Sun supports Java and open-source
software on
>>mobile devices, but expressed some caution about joining
Google's
>>alliance. "We were interested in being part of the
Google
>>ecosystem, but we were interested in getting more clarity on
what
>>this program entails," said Rich Green, executive vice
president
>>of Sun's softwrae effort."
>>
>>Paryline on this will follow.
>>
>>November 12, 2007 4:26 PM
PST

[Ed note: The rest of this email just quotes the
;linked article.
The article mentions a correction on Google's JCP status; the text explaining
the correction isn't included but the relevant paragraph is the same.]

> It's funny with Google. They take (without paying):
>* the FOSS code of 10 million developers
>* the web contents of 100 million websites
>* the searches of 1,000 million web users
>
>and add some magic of their own, after which they sell ads on
this
>to some 0.1 million companies. And everyone is happy.
>
>
>///mgm
>
>
>>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
>>...was with my Google buddy over the weekend, and we got to
talking
>>about licenses. He made some pretty interesting comments
about
>>their internal (as communicated by senior mgrs) view of
licenses.
>>They hate GPL, they like Apache, and they love BSD.
>>Just like Microsoft...
>>On Mar 25, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Marten Mickos
wrote:
>>>Jonathan,
>>>
>>>Yep. Expected.
>>>
>>>They have spent $27m investing in the EnterpriseDB brand
and now
>>>they switch to "Postgres
Plus".
>>>
>>>The list of Postgres attempts is getting
long:
>>>* Great Bridge in the early
2000s

CONFIDENTIAL
Trial Exhibit 1056, Page 1 of 2
OAGOOGLE0004653432

>>>* Red Had had "Red Hat
Database"
>>>* Progress had UltraSQL
>>>* CommandPrompt had MammothSQL
>>>* Pervasive sold Postgres support for a while
>>>* EnterpriseDB has Postgres Plus
>>>* in Canada there is a PosgreSQL Inc
>>>* and probably some more
>>>
>>>///mgm
>>>
>>>
>>>Jonathan Schwartz wrote:
>>>>
http://www.news.com/newsblog/8301-10784_3-9901973-7.html
>>>>from where I sit... the weird thing about
Postgres is that the
>>>>copyright isn't owned by a company, it's owned
by a collective -
>>>>via a BSD license that seems to spawn lots of
small companies,
>>>>but no center of mass... allowing us to say
"we suppo
>>>>Postgres," and putting folks like
EnterpriseDB into a position of
>>>>always having to explain who they
are...
>>>
>>>--
>>>Marten Mickos, SVP, Database Group, Sun
Microsystems
>>>
>
>--
>Marten Mickos, SVP, Database Group, Sun
Microsystems

CONFIDENTIAL
Trial Exhibit 1056, Page 2 of 2
OAGOOGLE0004653433

2070.pdf [Email thread between Vineet Gupta, Brian Sutphin and Jonathan Schwartz.
Dated Oct 23 2008, subject: 'Re: STATUS: MS TB Side. -- call to Eric S. at G' -
There is some discussion about a TB contract with Microsoft, then the topic
changes to Android. Notable quotesfrom Gupta, "Eric, Jeet and myself -
proposed a joint collaboration on the on a single stack that combined Java and
Android into a single platform (Linux+JVM+dalvik extensions+Java APIs+Android
APIs+Android Apps) - available thru Apache license - and having a single
AppStore jointly owned." "Now Andy - wants the entire eco-system to be
available for free - i.e. no connections to monetization" "So either
we find a way to work together - or they become our biggest competition with
Android"]

2195.pdf [Email thread where Greg Stein (Google) informs Simon Phipps (Sun) that
Sun sponsered projects will not be able to participate in Google
Summer of Code. Sun's continued lack of cooperation with the Apache
Software Foundation on the FOU (field of use) issue, is mentioned as
one of the reasons. The email is forwarded to multiple high-level
people at Sun and it ends with John Fowler asking: What is the Apache
issue? In his answer Jonathan Schwartz writes that they
(IBM/Google/Apache) can create a Java implementation but that they
need a commercial license to use the Java brand. The email ends with
the statement "But the codes available to be clear - just not the
brand." Jonathan Schwartz to John Fowler, CC Rich Green, dated
Mar 04 2008, subject: Re: Google summer of code 2008. Notable quotes from
Schwartz, "They can create a Java implementation, have it pass the
TCKs/etc., but they're not allowed to use our brand without a commercial license
- thus they perceive a restriction on the 'field of use' allowable for
Harmony." ... "But the code's available, to be clear - just not the
brand."]

2341.pdf Article from physorg.com: http://www.physorg.com/news97927195.html
titled 'Sun Reveals a Slew of Moves at JavaOne' The article is about Sun
releasing the JDK under GPLv2.

2371.pdf Email thread between Jonathan Schwartz and John Markoff, dated Nov 06
2007, subject 'Re: I don't get it?' - Markoff asks, "How the heck is Java
going to be part of the Apache distro that the Android software is being given
away under? Is this a legal issue between you and Google? How come they are
using Java and you aren't part of their Alliance?" Schwartz replies,
"off the record... God knows. They didn't want us to open source
Java," and "As for how they avoid those licenses, I don't know -
they've show a frankly stunning naivete about free software"

0005.pdf [Email from Tim Lindholm to Andy Rubin
sent 2005-08-05@12:49.
Subject Re: Fwd: Java VM for Android.
Last mail in a thread discussing possible choices of VM] [[Ed: As Andy Rubin refused to acknowledge an email due to inconsistent indents I have tried to reproduce the indents exactly]

This is indeed entertaining, and I'm sure lots of offers to "help"
will pop up as the Android Project becomes better known here.
FWIW I largely agree with Brian, and think that the guy pointing to
the various open source efforts out there is largely clueless. OK,
maybe there might be a few odds and ends that would be worth picking
up, where we have no value to add and the license isn't onerous. But
most of that stuff is complete crap. The first 30% of a Java runtime
is not nearly as valuable or costly as the last 30%, or 5%, of a
commercial-quality one.
I do want to second Robert G's assessment: he, Urs and Srdjan were
three of what is surely one of the best small JVM implementation
teams that has existed (there were five implementors total in the
original team). They shared an aesthetic for clean design and
coding that you probably won't see outside of academics. They had
some flaws, but not many. One is that they are stubborn Northern
Europeans, who will not necessarily appreciate some other way of
doing things. But I don't think they want to be JVM engineers any
more, and this separation makes for less reason for concern. Frank
Yellin doesn't have the elegance of the HotSpot guys, but is
extremely bright and very experienced with Sun's CLDC implementations.
The other Sun guys he mentions were each very good in their ways, but
not in ways that directly relate to what you need -- they were Big
Java guys, e.g. worrying about scalability and management.
On this same line, yesterday (or the day before??) I had lunch with
the guy at Sun who is the brain behind Sun's little-JVM-on-Linux
effort, on the efficient use of multiple processes on Linux. He
wants to get out of Sun and is extremely interested in Google,
even while not knowing anything about Android. (That email to
Vineet might be able to change this?). Unfortunately he has
immigration things require him to be out of the US Sept-Oct, and
then career things that might make him want to stay at Sun until
January. Knowledge of Android might overcome the latter, but if we
tried for him in the shorter term we'd need to accommodate the away
time. If we can't get him before the away time then he very likely
will stay until January. This guy could be a key hire. The only
possible downfall is that there had historically been bad blood
between the team he worked in and the HotSpot guys, but since then
he has proven his value.
--Tim
Andy Rubin wrote:
> Thought you'd get a kick out of this thread ...
>
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>>*From: *Robert Griesemer
>>*Dat e: *August 5, 2005 11 :35:38 AM PDT *To: *Brian Swetland
>> > *Cc: *Sascha
>> Brawer >,
>> arubin@google.com , nicksears@google.com
>> , miner@google.com
>> , cwhite@google.com
>> , fadden@google.com
>> , tcole@google.com
>> , ficus@google.com
>> , Patrik Reali
>> >, Urs Hoelzle
>> > *Subject: **Re: Java VM for Android*
>>
>>
>>Brian;
>>
>> I can't really comment on your project but I'd like to give you
>>some more background info in case you are interested: There are
>>several people here at Google that have intimate VM knowledge: Urs
>> H"i(, V2lzle, Srdjan Mitrovic, and I all worked on Sun's HotSpot JVM; we
>> are in fact part of the original designers of the VM. Srdjan and I
>> later wrote the "client" compiler for the VM (this is the default
>>compiler shipped with Sun's VM, for ia32 and SPARC); and we also
>> wrote the compiler for one version of Sun's CLDC VM for embedded
>>devices (also referred to as the "Monty" VM, running on StrongARM).
>>Todd Turnidge, David Stoutamire, and Ben Gomes joined the HotSpot
>> VM effort a bit later but also have done significant work in that
>>space. Srdjan, Todd, and I later also worked on a successor of the
>>HotSpot VM (for MIPS) at a startup. And last but not least we now
>>also have Tim Lindholm and Frank Yellin, the original Java VM guys
>> here at Google. But you probably don't want that many cooks ...
>>
>>Anyway, you may want to consider chatting with some of these
>> people, there is a considerable amount of knowledge that can be
>>tapped. - gri
>>
>> PS: I am not cc: these extra people to reduce the amount of spam
>>you're getting ... :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>On 8/5/05, *Brian Swetland*
>> > wrote:
>>
>> I am a somewhat familiar with the grungy work involved in embedded
>> JVM building -- I wrote the VM that the Danger Hiptop platform
>>uses.
>>
>>There are some useful reasons (in my mind) for going through the
>> effort of building our own embedded VM rather than just going with
>>off the shelf solutions:
>>
>> - We'd like things to be really well-integrated with the
>> environment, small, fast, and fast to launch. Both the "run the vm
>> in a little box just for midlets" model (used by most handsets
>> today) and "run the entire world inside one vm" model (used by
>>danger) have downsides. I'd like to take advantage of running Linux
>>on CPUs with a MMU (arm9 and better) and having multiple instances
>>of the VM run in their own process space. Being able to have hard
>> limits imposed by the kernel on memory use, etc, and tear down a
>> whole VM if an app misbehaves is something we wished for often at
>> Danger. To do this, we need to make sure we can start up things
>>quickly when apps launch -- if java is core to the system and not a
>> little novelty like in current handsets, users are not going to
>>want to wait 10-15 seconds for apps to launch.
>>
>> - License choice is important. One of the goals of this project is
>>to provide an open source system that's appealing to handset OEMs.
>>The Linux kernel is GPL'd, but all the pieces above the kernel
>>that we're using or building so far are under much friendlier
>> licenses (BSD or MIT style typically). Bringing in third party
>>commercial solutions is tricky for this reason too, unless we plan
>> on buying them outright or otherwise convincing them to release
>>their software under an open source license.
>>
>> - After some amazingly negative experiences at Be, dealing with
>> Cygnus C++ compiler support, I would have a lot of concerns about
>> throwing money (away) at Redhat or Cygnus or the like for language
>>or compiler support. Of course there's also the concern of
>>shopping core parts of the system out to possibly disinterested
>>third parties.
>>
>>-The JVM is going to be a central piece of the system we're
>> building, not some little add-on on the side -- so we can provide
>> some really good java application development and user experiences.
>> I'd like to take recycle bits where possible to support javascript
>>and other language bindings, which will require doing things a
>> little differently than an off the shelf JVM.
>>
>> - Classpath is interesting for their "build it all in java"
>> approach, but from a performance perspective (which matters a lot
>>on small devices), pushing chunks of the core library to native
>>code is a huge win. Also, it is GPL with some special riders
>>(which I thought the GPL disallowed ... ).
>>
>>Anyway, those are just some points off the top of my head,
>>
>>Brian
>>On 8/5/05, Sascha Brawer
>> > wrote:
>>> Hi androids,
>>>
>>& amp;gt;I happened to stumble upon your wiki page [1]. Are you really
>>sure you
>>>want to write your own JVM, as [2] seems to indicate? You
>>> certainly have your reasons, but it sounds like repeating lots of
>>> grungy work.
>>>
>>> So, if you don't mind, let me emit some random personal notes
>>> about the free Java scene.
>>>
>>> Everyone and their dog (not really, but way too many people) has
>>been
>>>writing a JVM around GNU Classpath [3]. Most of them don't target
>>>embedded systems, many are crap, much has gone to oblivion, but
>>>there's also some stuff that might possibly be useful to you
>>>guys.
>>>
>>> I'd really recommend having a look at JamVM [4]: it's fast for a
>>>pure
>>>inter preter, with a decent and small codebase. JamVM is what most
>>> Classpath hackers use nowadays for development. The author seems
>>>a nice guy, he was working on optimizing Sun's and IBM's JVMs,
>>> and is now an independent contractor.
>>>
>>> I know of two companies using Classpath for JVMs that target
>>>embedded systems:
>>>
>>> /k! [5] is a cover-up for one guy having his fun. My personal
>>> impression from the Classpath meetings is that the author is
>>>really into free software; I'm pretty sure he would be keen on a
>> contract for
>>> an open-source embedded JVM. In the meetings list, he seemed to
>>> know what he's talking about, but I haven't chatted that much
>>>with him.
>>>
>>> Aicas [6] is a real company whose embedded JVM is based on
>> Classpath.
>>> Since they haven't given anything back to the project, I'd be
>>> surprised if they would be interested in a contract for an
>> open-source
>>>embedded JVM.
>>>
>>> There's also a Bytecode-to-C compiler [7], but I've no idea
>>>whether it's any good. I don't think it gets much used. But it
>>> might be interesting in case you want to use an ahead-of-time
>>> compiler for selected hot spots, and use a pure interpreter like
>>> JamVM for the rest.
>>>
>>> Kaffe [8] has been used for embedded systems, but the licensing
>>>is in
>>> a limbo (GPL, copyright held by a dead company).
>>>
>>> You could pay Redhat for tweaking gcj/gcc, but their focus
>>really is
>>>on desktop systems. But since you mention C++ linkage on your
>>> wiki: gee uses the same vtables for Java and C++, they call this
>>>"Cygnus Native Interface (CNI)". There has been lots of talk
>>>about
>>>giving gee
>>> a better jitter for dynamically loaded bytecode; they currently
>>>have a
>>>very inefficient interpreter as part of the Java runtime
>>> library. But
>>> last I've heard, Redhat's plan now is to use the gee backend as
>>a JIT
>>> -- hairy stuff, and certainly totally unusable for an embedded
>>> sytem.
>>>
>>> If you need more info around the free Java projects, or if want
>>> to establish a contact, please feel to talk to either me or
>>> Patrik
>>Reali.
>>> We've both been somewhat active in this scene before joining
>>> Google, so we know most people from meetings.
>>>
>>> Oh, you surely know that quite a few people at Google have a JVM
>>> background? For instance Robert Griesemer or Urs Hoelzle. I hope
>>>
>>>you
>>>don't mind that I'm taking the liberty to cc them on this post,
>>> in case they want to comment/shoot me down.
>>>
>>> Best wishes, and have fun with Android,
>>>
>>> -- Sascha
>>>
>>> [1] http://wiki.corp.google.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/Android [2]
>> http://wiki.corp.google.com/twiki/bin/view/Main/AndroidJavaVM
>>>
>>>[3] http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/ [4]
>>>http://jamvm.sourceforge.net/ [5]
>>>http://www.kiffer.be/k/profile.html [6] http://www.aicas.com/ [7]
>>>http://jcvm.sourceforge.net/ [8] http://www.kaffe.org
>>>
>>
>>
>

Nedim Fresko is a candidate for the "Distinguished Engineer" title at
Sun who comes highly recommended by a former co-worker, Tim Lindholm.
Nedim brings deep expertise in the area of Java virtual machines and
the Java eco-system for embedded devices. This knowledge and
experience is critical to the Android project as the JVM is core to
our platform architecture and strategy. In addition, as we engage
further with Sun as a partner for our platform, Nedim's knowledge of
the code, architecture, MIDP environment, JSRs, etc. will be
invaluable in helping us navigate the world of Sun mobile technology.
Nedim will play a crucial role as a liaison between Google and Sun in
our developing partnership.

0292.pdf [Andy McFadden's input for an annual employment review. Covers the
period 1-Jan-2007 to 31-Aug-2007.]

0294.pdf [Top level activity reports in same format as 0027.pdf.
Covers period July 18, 2005 - May 5, 2008.
On initial inspection this is a superset of 0027.pdf apart from the first 15
lines of 0027.]

0302.pdf [Email from hr-help@google.com to fadden@googl.com;
Subject Googlee Perf Confirmation.
Confirmation of receipt of Andy McFadden's Employment review information
The body appears to be the same or very similar to 0292.pdf]

0971.pdf [Sun Microsystems Inc Form 10K.
ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF
1934.
For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008]

2012-05-10:

0047.24.pdf Source code for newarray unit tests (tests default array
initialization, structural constraints between elements of the
bytecode, etc.)
The constraint 4.8.2.1 mentioned in some of the tests is documented as
"The number and types of arguments (registers and immediate values)
must always match the instruction" (see
http://code.google.com/p/android-dalvik-vm-on-java/source/browse/trunk/dalvikvm/doc/google/dalvik-constraints.html).

0047.25.pdf Source code for unit tests for Dalvik opcode iastore (iastore is used
in static array initialization in .class files).

[Additional info (not referenced in the exhibit):
Example #2 in this presentation
(http://www.imamu.edu.sa/dcontent/IT_Topics/java/2008-05-29-presentation-of-dalvik-vm-internals.pdf)
shows the difference between array initialization in .class files and
.dex files. They are totally different at the bytecode level - the
.class contains a series of iastore operations where as .dex copies a
data area into the array.]

1001.pdf Email from Dan Bornstein (Google) to Patrick Brady (Google) about
development of CTS (Compatibility Test Suite). Mentiones work done by
Noser. Includes this comment from Bornstein: Although we don't have a
relationship with Sun, we've been trying to be good "Java citizens"
nonetheless, and testing dx falls under that umbrella, since it's
*the* piece that bridges the divide.